Let's try this again, but with the proper formatting to make it clearer...
Lots of companies make accessories that only work with this or that brand of something.
Such as? Can you name at least one company that makes accessories specifically for one other company's product that does not have a licence agreement with that other company? And try to use non-software examples, since they're really at the center of these disagreements.
Blizzard doesn't have a patent on the Battle.net protocol. Maybe you should actually read the complaint [bnetd.org] against bnetd before spouting off.
The person citing this example was comparing the copyright issues of Blizzard with the patent issues of mechanical parts. Once I stated why this point of view was wrong for patents, I assumed that people would be able to make the jump back to comparable copyright issues.
A better analogy would be writing an all new script with a similar plot, then yes, Lucas would have no case.
No, he would still have a case. Let's say that instead of the same script, a new script was written to tell the same story, start to finish, but from the standpoint of other characters in the scenes. You're still telling the same story, the one owned by Lucas. "Troops" and other fan movies overcome this because they are telling their own stories. They may be set in the Star Wars universe, but they are not trying to retell Lucas's story
Re:Great Examples--Easier to show why you're Wrong
on
Warcraft III Gone Gold
·
· Score: 1
Lots of companies make accessories that only work with this or that brand of something.
Such as? Can you name at least one company that makes accessories specifically for one other company's product that does not have a licence agreement with that other company? And try to use non-software examples, since they're really at the center of these disagreements.
Blizzard doesn't have a patent on the Battle.net protocol. Maybe you should actually read the complaint [bnetd.org] against bnetd before spouting off.
The person citing this example was comparing the copyright issues of Blizzard with the patent issues of mechanical parts. Once I stated why this point of view was wrong for patents, I assumed that people would be able to make the jump back to comparable copyright issues.
A better analogy would be writing an all new script with a similar plot, then yes, Lucas would have no case.
No, he would still have a case. Let's say that instead of the same script, a new script was written to tell the same story, start to finish, but from the standpoint of other characters in the scenes. You're still telling the same story, the one owned by Lucas. "Troops" and other fan movies overcome this because they are telling their own stories. They may be set in the Star Wars universe, but they are not trying to retell Lucas's story.
If someone created attachments that worked with only Stanley hammers, then yes, Stanley will be able to prosecute that producer. If someone created attachments that worked with any hammer, Stanley would not have a case. Similarly, if bnetd worked with any RTS and not just Warcraft or others made by Blizzard, Blizzard would have a harder time justifying their position.
As to your other example, Ford can certainly sue people for manufacturing after-market parts, if they own a patent on that part. Blizzard owns all the parts to their games, as well as Battle.net.
Here's an example that may be a little clearer. Suppose some people decided to hire all of the actors in Attack of the Clones and made their own version of AotC, with the same scenes, same script, same story. Now supposed these people released the AotC clone, but charged no one to see it.
Don't you think Lucas would be within his rights to sue?
Generally, 'legal analysis' implies that there is some...well, legal analysis. This article from Yale has none. It is just a statement of portions of the DMCA and the author's opinion on how the courts should find.
Phrases such as "to my knowledge" have no place in a 'legal analysis'. It either is, or it isn't. If you don't know for sure, you look it up and quote the source.
My favorite portion of the 'analysis' was at the end:
Furthermore, under section 1201(f)(2):
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure... for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
It seems pretty clear that even if bnetd is a circumvention device, then it clearly falls under the exemption of 1201(f)(2), since any circumvention is only for the purpose of achieving interoperability between bnetd and the Blizzard game.
This 'analyst' conveniently omits a reference to 1201(f)(1) (which requires the circumventor have a legally obtained copy of the circumvented program). Additionally, 1201(f)(2) clearly states that the circumvention program falls under the exception if it is necessary to achieve such interoperability.
This does not mean that it falls under the exception if it can be used for interoperability, it means that there must be no other means.
Before recorded media was invented, if you wanted to share a song, you would sing it so that others could learn it. Similarly with stories.
Back in the early parts of those days, everything was shared; food, clothing, shelter, and safety. This sharing served a purpose--the continuation of the group. At that time, the sharing of songs and story also served a purpose, the perpetuation of the group's history and culture.
Then we developed ways to make these entertainments into physical objects. This cost effort/money, but allowed these entertainments to be brought and sold, and their distribution could be controlled and limited.
Well, there's a huge leap in time there... The original (and primary) benefit was that it freed people from having to memorize history and folklore to pass it down to the next generation--it could be written down and future generations could come back to it. Now the only people who went around singing and storytelling were entertainers who were paid for their work. Once the printing press came into wide use, artists could reach a wider audience, effectively being in many places at once, and not limited to the rich. Did mankind benefit? Sure. But the main beneficiaries were the artists themselves.
We have now invented technology which means that they can be shared in a non-physical way again, digitally via networks, and copied at virtually zero cost.
And the beneficiaries of this? The artists? Um...no. The people who benefit from this are the so-called consumers, since they now get for free something that the artist was once able to collect a fee for. (I limit this argument to music and literary works, since that is how you framed your argument. In the case of scientific, philosophical, or other related pathways, there are vast distinctions)
The debate should be "What is the most civilized thing to do? What would be best for mankind?"
Do you really believe this? Do you think mankind is benefited by giving everyone on Earth a copy of the latest Britney Spears album, or the Buffy Musical, or the bootlegged LotR movie? P2P file sharing is good for mankind, and does help with the distribution of ideas; however, it needs to be limited to sharing which is voluntary of the owner's wishes. And that's the owner of the idea, not the owner of the CD.
Unfortunately these days global lawmaking is heavily influenced by America, and America has been corrupted by corporate power arising from a basic selfishness in the modern America value system. [...] It wasn't always this way.
Interesting that it's selfish for artists to protect their work, but not selfish for people to want to obtain it at "virtually zero cost".
Actually, it's always been this way, and not just in America. Selfishness is a human trait. People want what is best for them, and often at the expense of their neighbors. This has been going on long before Europeans came to America. In the past, the most selfish and powerful people who ran countries and influenced the masses were known as monarchs. Today, many happen to be CEOs.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's try this again, but with the proper formatting to make it clearer...
Lots of companies make accessories that only work with this or that brand of something.
Such as? Can you name at least one company that makes accessories specifically for one other company's product that does not have a licence agreement with that other company? And try to use non-software examples, since they're really at the center of these disagreements.
Blizzard doesn't have a patent on the Battle.net protocol. Maybe you should actually read the complaint [bnetd.org] against bnetd before spouting off.
The person citing this example was comparing the copyright issues of Blizzard with the patent issues of mechanical parts. Once I stated why this point of view was wrong for patents, I assumed that people would be able to make the jump back to comparable copyright issues.
A better analogy would be writing an all new script with a similar plot, then yes, Lucas would have no case.
No, he would still have a case. Let's say that instead of the same script, a new script was written to tell the same story, start to finish, but from the standpoint of other characters in the scenes. You're still telling the same story, the one owned by Lucas. "Troops" and other fan movies overcome this because they are telling their own stories. They may be set in the Star Wars universe, but they are not trying to retell Lucas's story
Such as? Can you name at least one company that makes accessories specifically for one other company's product that does not have a licence agreement with that other company? And try to use non-software examples, since they're really at the center of these disagreements.
Blizzard doesn't have a patent on the Battle.net protocol. Maybe you should actually read the complaint [bnetd.org] against bnetd before spouting off.
The person citing this example was comparing the copyright issues of Blizzard with the patent issues of mechanical parts. Once I stated why this point of view was wrong for patents, I assumed that people would be able to make the jump back to comparable copyright issues. A better analogy would be writing an all new script with a similar plot, then yes, Lucas would have no case.
No, he would still have a case. Let's say that instead of the same script, a new script was written to tell the same story, start to finish, but from the standpoint of other characters in the scenes. You're still telling the same story, the one owned by Lucas. "Troops" and other fan movies overcome this because they are telling their own stories. They may be set in the Star Wars universe, but they are not trying to retell Lucas's story.
As to your other example, Ford can certainly sue people for manufacturing after-market parts, if they own a patent on that part. Blizzard owns all the parts to their games, as well as Battle.net.
Here's an example that may be a little clearer. Suppose some people decided to hire all of the actors in Attack of the Clones and made their own version of AotC, with the same scenes, same script, same story. Now supposed these people released the AotC clone, but charged no one to see it.
Don't you think Lucas would be within his rights to sue?
All of your "legitimate" porn sites will have the disclaimer 'All of our girls are of legal age.'
All pedophile sites will have the disclaimer 'All of our girls are models.'
Running out of beer at the Budweiser tent.
Generally, 'legal analysis' implies that there is some...well, legal analysis. This article from Yale has none. It is just a statement of portions of the DMCA and the author's opinion on how the courts should find.
Phrases such as "to my knowledge" have no place in a 'legal analysis'. It either is, or it isn't. If you don't know for sure, you look it up and quote the source.
My favorite portion of the 'analysis' was at the end:
This 'analyst' conveniently omits a reference to 1201(f)(1) (which requires the circumventor have a legally obtained copy of the circumvented program). Additionally, 1201(f)(2) clearly states that the circumvention program falls under the exception if it is necessary to achieve such interoperability.
This does not mean that it falls under the exception if it can be used for interoperability, it means that there must be no other means.